Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Ceolric Services vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 14 February, 2011
IN THE ,CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, FKCCI COMPLEX, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE 56009.
DATE OF HEARING : 14/2/2011
DATE OF DECISION : 14/2/2011
Stay application No. 632/2010
Service Tax Appeal No. 1150 of 2010
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 170/2010 dated
07.04.2010, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri S. S. Kang, Vice President
Honble Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ? Yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
M/s Ceolric Services Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Respondent
Bangalore.
Present for the Appellant : Shri Ramasuramanian, Advocate
Present for the Respondent : Shri M.M. Ravi Rajendran, JDR
CORAM : Honble Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President
Honble Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical)
ORDER No..Dated 14/2/2011
PER SHRI S. S. KANG
The applicant has filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amount of Rs. 1,28,576/-, interest and penalty. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant had filed a return under Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and subsequently revised this return. The lower authority has not taken into consideration the revised return on the ground that the same has been filed after the period prescribed under Rule 7B of the Rules. The contention is that Rule 7C of the Rules provides penal action for not filing the return within the period stipulated under Rule 7 of the Rules. The contention is that the revised return was not taken into consideration while determining the tax liability. Therefore the demand is not sustainable.
2. The contention of the Revenue is that the applicant filed return under Rule 7 of the Rules. When the Revenue pointed out certain discrepancies, the applicants filed revised return after a lapse of 11 months and as per the rules, the revised return is be filed within 60 days. Therefore the impugned demand is sustainable.
3. We find that the revised return as provided under Rule 7B should be filed within 60 days from the date of submission of the original return. Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994 reads as follows:
7C. Amount to be paid for delay in furnishing the prescribed return. Where the return prescribed under rule 7 is furnished after the date prescribed for submission of such return, the person liable to furnish the said return shall pay to the credit of the Central Government, for the period of delay of -
(i) fifteen days from the date prescribed for submission of such return, an amount of five hundred rupees;
(ii) beyond fifteen days but not later than thirty days from the date prescribed for submission of such return, an amount of one thousand rupees; and
(iii) beyond thirty days from the date prescribed for submission of such return an amount of one thousand rupees plus one hundred rupees for every day from the thirty first day till the date of furnishing the said return :
Provided that the total amount payable in terms of this rule, for delayed submission of return, shall not exceed the amount specified in section 70 of the Act :
Provided further that where the assessee has paid the amount as prescribed under this rule for delayed submission of return, the proceedings, if any, in respect of such delayed submission of return shall be deemed to be concluded :
[Provided also that where the gross amount of service tax payable is nil, the Central Excise officer may, on being satisfied that there is sufficient reason for not filing the return, reduce or waive the penalty.] Explanation. - It is hereby declared that any pending proceedings under section 77 for delayed submission or non-submission of return that has been initiated before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2007 receives the assent of the President, shall also be deemed to be concluded if the amount specified for delay in furnishing the return is paid by the assessee within sixty days from the date of assent to the said Finance Bill. In view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules, the revised return cannot be ignored simply on the ground that the same has been filed after a period provided under Rule 7B of the Rules. In these circumstances, we find that the matter requires re-consideration by the adjudicating authority in view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules. The impugned order is set aside, after waiving pre-deposit of the amount of service tax, interest and penalty and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after offering an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court) (S. S. Kang) Vice President (P. Karthikeyan) Member (Technical) /vc/